Weaver (J.E.) Enterprises Ltd. v. Hardy, (1998) 171 N.S.R.(2d) 30 (SC)

• Judge: Hood, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1998), 171 N.S.R.(2d) 30 (SC)

Weaver Ent. Ltd. v. Hardy (1998), 171 N.S.R.(2d) 30 (SC);

    519 A.P.R. 30

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.007

J.E. Weaver Enterprises Limited, a body corporate (plaintiff) v. Isabel Hardy, John Hardy and Kristy Hardy (defendants)

(S.H. No. 121896; S.C.A. 147647)

Indexed As: Weaver (J.E.) Enterprises Ltd. v. Hardy

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Hood, J.

April 22, 1998.

Summary:

Hardy contracted with Weaver Enterprises for construction work on his mother's prop­erty. Hardy made a partial payment then declared bankruptcy. Weaver Enterprises sued Hardy based on agency and his mother, for restitution for unjust enrichment.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the action against Hardy pursuant to rule 30.08 because no prima facie case was made out. The court also dismissed the action against Hardy's mother and awarded her costs.

Agency - Topic 323

Creation of relations - Parties - Who con­stitutes an agent - Hardy contracted with Weaver Enterprises for construction work on his mother's property - Hardy's mother was out of the country and was unaware of the work until after its completion - Hardy made a partial pay­ment then declared bankruptcy - Weaver Enterprises sued, inter alia, Hardy, alleging that he had acted as agent for his mother - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the action pur­su­ant to rule 30.08 because no prima facie case was made out - The court, having considered the parties' intent and the cir­cumstances surrounding the contract from an objective point of view, concluded that there was no evidence that Hardy had acted as agent for his mother - See para­graph 21.

Building Contracts - Topic 4003

Quantum meruit claims - General - Cir­cumstances where doctrine not applied -Hardy contracted with Weaver Enterprises for construction work on his mother's property - Weaver Enterprises knew at the outset that the property belonged to Hardy's mother - Hardy's mother was unaware of the construction work until after its completion - Hardy made a partial payment then declared bankruptcy - Weaver Enterprises sued, inter alia, Hardy's mother for restitution for unjust enrichment - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the action - Restitution did not apply in the circumstances - There was no relationship between Weaver Enterprises and Hardy's mother - Further­more, she neither requested that the work be done nor acquiesced in its performance - See para­graphs 22 to 44.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - General - What consti­tutes - [See Building Contracts - Topic 4003 ].

Restitution - Topic 66

Unjust enrichment - General - Conditions precedent - [See Building Contracts - Topic 4003 ].

Restitution - Topic 784

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Recovery based on quantum meruit - Work performed - [See Building Con­tracts - Topic 4003 ].

Restitution - Topic 2505

Benefit acquired at defendant's request - Recovery based on quantum meruit - Work or services performed - General - [See Building Contracts - Topic 4003 ].

Cases Noticed:

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada, [1954] S.C.R. 725, refd to. [para. 25].

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd., [1943] A.C. 32, refd to. [para. 25].

Nicholson v. St. Denis (1975), 57 D.L.R.(3d) 699 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Preeper and Preeper v. Preeper and Isnor (1978), 27 N.S.R.(2d) 82; 41 A.P.R. 82 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Deacon and Deacon v. Adams; Adams v. Deacon and Deacon; Murphy's Aluminum Ltd. v. Adams, Deacon and Deacon (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 218; 114 A.P.R. 218 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Clearwater Well Drilling v. Wile (1996), 148 N.S.R.(2d) 306; 429 A.P.R. 306 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Carabin v. Offman (1988), 87 N.S.R.(2d) 407; 222 A.P.R. 407; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Turf Masters Landscaping Ltd. v. T.A.G. Developments and Dartmouth (City) (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 411 A.P.R. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Joseph S. Roza, for the plaintiff;

Kelly Patrick Shannon, for the defendants.

This action was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Hood, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment orally on April 22, 1998, and released written reasons on September 30, 1998.